Blockchain@USC - Delegate Communication Thread

Due to other obligations of our team, we have neglected to post rationales for the votes of the year of 2024. Here is the backlog of these vote rationales.

Special Voting Cycle #17

Summary of Code of Conduct enforcement decisions

We OPTIMISTICALLY APPROVED

As the Code of Conduct enforcement mostly relies on trust (in order to keep parties confidential), we don’t have much information to express agreement/disagreement, so our approval is based on that continued trust in the committee, as well as the committee’s transparency and communication in these matters (to the degree that they are able). Also, none of the cases seemed to have any dissent from the accused or other parties, which added to our comfort with the committee’s decision.

Does it fulfill our mission?

“We strive to promote equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and effective community ownership and governance of key web3 infrastructure through thoughtful and researched decision-making and community engagement.”

Yes. Overall, this process marks an important departure from reliance on the Foundation and responsible handling of Code of Conduct enforcement.

Upgrade Proposal #3: Delta Network Upgrade

We voted FOR

The proposing team (TestInProd) is trustworthy and confirmed this upgrade with OP Labs. The report on the upgrade, including risks and mitigation factors, seem reasonable and thorough. Thus, we feel comfortable voting For.

Does it fulfill our mission?

“We strive to promote equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and effective community ownership and governance of key web3 infrastructure through thoughtful and researched decision-making and community engagement.”

Yes.

Proposal to Reclassify Grant Misusage Enforcement

We voted AGAINST

Following the statement here.

“We do not believe the grant freeze power should be taken away from token house delegates. Although we support the idea of giving delegates less work to do, in the extreme case that the token house agrees that someone should not be eligible to receive grant funding, they should be able to take that action. The token house should be the ultimate owner of governance funds, they should be allowed to revoke people’s access to it.”

Does it fulfill our mission?

“We strive to promote equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and effective community ownership and governance of key web3 infrastructure through thoughtful and researched decision-making and community engagement.”

Yes. Rejecting this proposal is in line with the principle of community ownership and governance.

Voting Cycle #18

Protocol Upgrade #4

We voted FOR

Reasonable upgrade, and we have sufficient trust in OPLabs and their development process.

Mission Requests (Intents 1, 2, 3, and 4)

We ABSTAINED

Due to our intent to apply for many of the missions across categories.

Voting Cycle #19

Protocol Upgrade #5

We voted FOR

Similar reason to protocol upgrade #4.

Protocol Upgrade #6

We voted FOR

Similar reason to protocol upgrade #4 and #5.

Voting Cycle #21

Governor Update #1: Improve advanced delegation voting

We voted FOR

Improves voting UX.

Season 5: Intents Budget Proposal #2

We voted FOR

We believe this reallocation could lead to funding more projects that improve the collective.

Voting Cycle #23a

Protocol Upgrade #7: Fault Proofs

We voted ABSTAIN

We don’t currently feel confident in our ability to give an educated vote based on the discussion occurring.

Protocol Upgrade #8: Changes for Stage 1 Decentralization

We voted FOR

Important upgrade with outstanding questions answered.

Governor Update Proposal #2: Improvements to advanced delegation allowance calculations

We voted FOR

Season 6: Grants Council Operating Budget

We voted ABSTAIN

We were unable to dedicate time toward a researched opinion.

Season 6: Code of Conduct Council Renewal

We voted ABSTAIN

We were unable to dedicate time toward a researched opinion.

Season 6: Developer Advisory Board Renewal

We voted ABSTAIN

We were unable to dedicate time toward a researched opinion.

Season 6: Intents Ratification and Budget Approval

We voted ABSTAIN

We were unable to dedicate time toward a researched opinion.

Voting Cycle #23b

Upgrade Proposal #9: Fjord Network Upgrade

We voted FOR

Reasonable and necessary upgrade

Grants Council Reviewer Elections

We voted ABSTAIN

Unable to provide researched opinion.

Developer Advisory Board Elections

We voted ABSTAIN

Unable to provide researched opinion.

Season 6: Anticapture Commission Amendment

We voted FOR

Season 6: Chain Delegation Program Amendment

We voted FOR

Season 6: V2. Code of Conduct Council Renewal

We voted ABSTAIN

Unable to provide researched opinion.

Voting Cycle #24-27

We voted ABSTAIN on all proposals.

Voting Cycle #28

Season 6: Standard Rollup Charter

We voted FOR

Governor Update Proposal #3: Enable onchain treasury execution

We voted FOR

Voting Cycle #29

Season 6: Standard Rollup Charter

We voted FOR

Governor Update Proposal #3: Enable onchain treasury execution

We voted FOR

Voting Cycle #31a

Upgrade Proposal #11: Holocene Network Upgrade

We voted FOR

—----------

We voted ABSTAIN for the rest of the proposals in this cycle

Voting Cycle #31b

We voted ABSTAIN on all proposals in this cycle

Main decision maker: @chaselb